-
Yes, I'm very much opposed to a loosening of planning regulations, too. It generally has bad consequences--the planning system's obviously not popular with landowners who want to have the freedom to do with 'their' land whatever they please, and there's constant lobbying on that. A lot of land that's 'marginal' is designated MOL or Common Land and therefore has little value to speculators. When I first saw Al's post, those alarm bells definitely rang, but this is not overdevelopment (only a fraction of the site is actually used for the housing component), there has evidently been a constructive process of engagement, the land has genuinely been derelict and walled-off for a long time, it's surrounded by other housing of similar density, and there's an element of public amenity and linking that seems good (saying all this without having seen the full details). However, for cases like this you don't need general rule changes but occasional exceptions that confirm the rule.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
To be clear I wasn't making a judgement on this project. Generally opposed to building on MOL, especially given recent events and the increased value placed on access to green spaces.
The decision by dingbat Johnson to allow it has resulted in open land that should never be built on being put under attack from developers.
But if @Oliver Schick is OK with this project I probably am.